[m-rev.] for review: atoms in the debugger

[Mark Brown]

On 02-Jan-2002, Zoltan Somogyi <zs at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> On 02-Jan-2002, Ralph Becket <rafe at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > I've always found the Prolog habit of abbreviating "atomic formula" as
> > "atom" to be rather confusing, since atomic formulae can have structure
> > whereas the "standard" interpretation of an atom is as something
> > indivisible.

"Atomic" is a good adjective for these formulae, since they can't be
broken down into smaller formulae.  I stopped being confused about the
meaning of "atom" a long time ago, when I stopped being confused about
the difference between terms and goals.

> 
> Only before the thirties.
> 
> In both physics and here, an atom is best treated as indivisible in some
> contexts (e.g. when discussing derivations) and as divisible in other contexts
> (e.g. when browsing).
> 
> > I'd use "functor" or "term" or even "atomic formula" rather than just
> > "atom".
> 
> "Functor" and "term" both have their own meanings which are different
> from what we mean here.
> 
> "Atomic formula" is just too long, and in any case I don't see any difference
> between it and "atom" wrt implications of indivisibility.
> 
> I see this debate as pointless, because it is more important for terminology
> to be standard than for it to be intrinsically "good" in some sense. For
> better or worse, the concept we need is named "atom" in the logic programming
> literature.

I agree with this; I think we should stick with "atom".

Cheers,
Mark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------